Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Unlike Clear Skies . . . I almost buy the Bush argument. I think it's reasonable to make the default position favorable to economic activity as long as any site that changes hands remains clearly identified as PCB-contaminated and the new owner is legally responsible for cleaning it up BEFORE they can develop it.
Me too. That's the problem with the Bush administration. They're so used to lying about and concealing everything they do, you can't trust them even when they may have done something reasonable.Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Unlike Clear Skies . . . I almost buy the Bush argument. I think it's reasonable to make the default position favorable to economic activity as long as any site that changes hands remains clearly identified as PCB-contaminated and the new owner is legally responsible for cleaning it up BEFORE they can develop it.
Agreed...for the most part. However, it concerns me that they are trying to keep this from being public by classifying it as simply a "new interpretation" of an existing law. I really would like to hope for the best, but the current EPA trend doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
EPA lifts ban on selling PCB sites
Originally posted by: glenn1
EPA lifts ban on selling PCB sites
Okay, the hypothesis seems to be that if contaminated properties are allowed to be transferred to a new owner, the contamination won't be cleaned up. But it's already a given that the site has been contaminated, and has remained so for 25 years with a neglible chance of cleanup in the forseeable future. So how does transferrence of the title to the property change anything? For sake of argument, we can even stipulate that the new owner doesn't clean it up. Won't it remain contaminated either way?
I guess it comes down to what your worldview is. Some will no doubt say that the odds remain higher that the old owner will undertake cleanup before a new owner would, even if the old owner hasn't done so in over 25 years, but i'm skeptical of that claim.
Some EPA staffers have raised concerns that the change could make it hard to track the sale of PCB sites and ensure that buyers don't spread contamination by developing property before it's cleaned up
If the EPA lost track of it after it was sold
Originally posted by: glenn1
If the EPA lost track of it after it was sold
How do you lose track of a geographical location? Not like the new owner is going to put a few acres into a moving van and take it somewhere else where the feds can't find it. Besides, what local political body is going to approve the development plan and rezoning of a site which hasn't been certified to be clean? Last time i checked, people tend to notice when a large building complex is being constructed...